Mike Hugo 2013-05-13, 22:09
Well, encoding it might save space, but strings are nice and
human-readable, especially in the shell, and in the overall scheme of
things, a string probably isn't really that much larger on disk,
especially after compression.
Christopher L Tubbs II
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Mike Hugo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been playing around with the LongCombiner on a table that's summing up
> the counts of output of a MapReduce job, very similar to the WordCount
> example from the user manual.
> I started out encoding the values using LongCombiner.FIXED_LEN_ENCODER, but
> have noticed that this can lead to some confusion later on downstream. For
> example, a co-worker was scanning using the shell and was caught off guard
> by the encoded values. Also, out of the box, the StatsCombiner example
> works using String values, not Long values so we built a custom piece to
> essentially do the same thing with Long values instead.
> It looks to me like most of the examples I've seen just store things are
> String values, rather than encoding them. What are the tradeoffs? We're at
> a point where we could pretty easily switch things to just use strings - it
> seems like that might make things more convenient from a maintenance
> perspective (human readable values) and would allow us to re-use some
> existing components (e.g. StatsCombiner). Any thoughts?
Mike Hugo 2013-05-14, 02:04
Jared Winick 2013-05-14, 06:09
John Vines 2013-05-13, 22:16